Why do people deny evolution?

Yeah, for sure, but now we have a form of tyranny creeping in, totally shunning research input, to further a profit margin. Just look to the cash being pumped into the denialist movement, and the truth in labelling debate.

If corporates are happy to label their exports, but not their US products, there should be a huge What da Fuque from the press. But they own the press.

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.


The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidirctional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?

Richard Goldschmidt's write up of the fruit fly experiments was in 1940. There is no excuse for evolution being taught in civilized nations after 1940.

Why do people deny evolution?

Mainly because it's a bunch of bullshit, basically a brain-dead ideological doctrine masquerading as a science theory.

I feel sorry for you and people like you. I really do.

But you can't explain why????

I don't deny there is change!

I don't believe that crap because there is no evidence for macro evolution

NOWHERE

Unless someone already beliefs this nonsense and then it is circular reasoning

science is full of circular reasoning.

lol

are you sure?

SHOW ME!

That only means you have never researched it!!

Meanwhile, the theory of evolution unifies all of biologynand new evidence appears almost weekly.
Just this week another new transitional fossil was reported from a discovery made a few years ago. This fossil is actually a small version of a "fish reptile" that was an ancestral form that clearly shows the development of Icthyosaurs.

Science doesn't need ignorami like gunga or the clam to be validated, you just hope that the beliefs of these troglodytes don't get passed on to their children.

Why feel sorry for them, they cant get in the way and they do provide entertainment.

I was thinking just yesterday, aren't pretty much all fossils transitional? Except for those at extinction boundaries, of course.

Interesting you should say that. For years I've maintained among my friends - to their amusement - that I consider diarrhea to be cheap entertainment.

EXACTLY. As long as some life form existed, we can find transitional fossils that presage its appearance. Finding transitional fossils is like finding a tree in central park, theyre all over .
However, In most all cases, its a march to extinction given enough time and the changing environment on the planet.

Yeah, I mentioned that because it looked like...what's-his-name up there...was trying to slip his god in an imaginary gap where he thinks there aren't any transitional fossils.

you are a bit of a liar.

I am nowhere talking about any god!!!

And you don't reasd my posting

and why is your religion evolution?

wow!!!!!

Do you even know what you are writing here????

Talking about circular reasoning and projecting!

You ASSUME the thing that has to be PROVEN!!!


unbelievable!!!

I dnt know because I think hes just nuts and Ive jut ignored him once he started screaming in print. I do like to follow gunga because he will go out and present some anti-science web site that is usually quite slick and tries to present its fraud in a way that younger kids would buy.

That "100 things that evolutionites fear" I a great site because it does summarize the way that these clowns try to twist data and evidence to draw whacky conclusions.

Yeah, I haven't put gunga on Ignore yet like I have the ones who scream in practically every post. And I agree that it's a bit of an education to see how (usually informal) logical fallacies manifest themselves. The strength of cognitive bias amazes me to the point that I sometimes wonder if at least some of these characters aren't Poe's. Then again, I don't even try to extrapolate from what people post to what/how they are offline anymore. Too much guesswork.

I just found something interesting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/06/amphibious-icthyosaur_n_6111876.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000022&ir=Weird+News



Pics and more story at the link, if you're interested. Now, if these theists/creationists could come up with a single scrap of evidence for their invisible sky-fairy with as much empirical verifiability as that one fossil, I'd pay them more attention.

That's what I was referring to above. Its amazing how this stuff just keeps coming. As Wilso said,
and I paraphrase,
"Weve run out of room to nail shut the coffin lid of Creationism"

That's so cool.